Chowk Special

TO NO ONE IN PARTICULAR:

Can any one of the learned interlocutors here define ORTHODOXY, DOGMA, SECULARISM, OBJECTIVITY and BELIEF?

Unless we agree on some working definitions that would establish the parametres we could go on honking our two pennies` worth till doomsday.

regards

Mubashir:

``married 99 women (``social-welfare reasons``) some as young 9 or 11.``

I don`t know where you get your information (some prehistoric tabloid may be) but Prophet (PBUH) married 11 woman. Among them only Hazrat Aisha was very young. But if you look at the life of Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her), she grew out to be one of the most influential woman in early Islam.

Noor, Wasiq, and others:

Those people who want to take a scientific study of Islam and Islamic history would have to deconstruct to present views of them. And then have to make judgements about what is true and what is not with the presuppositions and prejudices of the present age. I think such task would be very detrimental to the common Muslims who have passionate love for their religion. They will surely revolt against the merciless slicing of their belief with the scientific scapulae.

Following is the passage from ``The vision of Islam``, written by non-Muslim historian who caution against such endeavors.

-------

If we ask why we should learn lesson x instead of lesson y, we will soon realize that historians -- those who make it their profession to write about the past -- have points of views, presuppositions, and ideologies. Of course. This is no less true for the study of contemporary society, or psychology, or bacteria. When we find meaning, we do so on the basis of preconceived ideas about what can be meaningful; otherwise we are left with a disconnected jumble of information.

In the modern world, we have witnessed the birth of the critical study of history. A host of new methods for studying the past have given many scholars confidence that human being, for the first time, are able to look at the past ``objectively`` and ``scientifically.`` The self-congratulation involved in this view of things should be obvious, and it should also be enough to put us on our guard.

... To focus on reason is to focus on the quantitative dimension of reality; it is to divide, dissect, and take apart. Herein lies the genius and the power of modern civilization, but also its nemesis. The underlying thrust of all critical scholarship (not simply the school that has adopted the term as its own) is to deconstruct. The net result is the exponential increase exponential increase of information, midst of this world without a center and without an origin (as Eliade uses these terms), all sorts of claims are made for every subdiscipline of learning. Among historians, the claim is simply ``We know better,`` whatever the specific methodology that is pursued.

One cannot object to the idea that modern methodologies that uncovered information that has heretofore been unknown or ignored. One can object, however, when a historian speaks of significance in terms that have religious or cosmic repercussions.

... Some historians may declare that they are simply recording events, but in this day and age, most are willing to admit that objective history is an illusion: It is impossible to record an even without making judgements about its significance. When information has been handed down from the remote past, such judgements are made at every stage. The historians set for themselves the laudable goal of uncovering the actual event under the accumulated layers of interpretation, but this simply means that they present us with their own interpretations: To conceptualize is to interpret.

(Murata and Chittick,``The Vision of Islam.`` (New York, Paragon House, 1994), p. 321-323)

I would recommend this book to everyone.

sallam

This letter is a response to the article, hilighting the misunderstandings of the Quran by the authors of the article... It is written by Jeremiah McAuliffe, a frequenter of alt.religion.islam.

altaf



From: alimhaq@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)

Letters to the Editor

The Atlantic Monthly

77 North Washington Street

Boston, MA 02114

December 30, 1998

To the Editor,

As a convert to Islam with a background in academic religious

studies, it was with great excitement and enthusiasm that I opened

your January 1999 cover article ``What is the Koran?`` by Toby Lester.

It seems clear that much of Muslim theology has stagnated into a dry

legalism over the last few centuries, as represented by the famous

phrase ``closing the doors to ijtihad``. ``Ijtihad`` refers to the

interpretation of the Qur an. (The phrase is famous among Muslims,

and is central to understanding many issues facing contemporary

Muslims, but this was not mentioned by the author.)

And so, I approached the article anticipating an exciting

exploration. However, I was very disappointed. It clearly exhibited a

confused understanding of some aspects of Muslim thought-- including

statements that were simply misleading-- and a confusion between two

interesting topics: the history of the Qur an and the interpretation

of the Qur an. In addition, Lester makes use of references that are

out of print and/or written by self-proclaimed antagonists to Islam.

In other words, there is no way to check many of the author s major

references, and some of them are clearly bigoted-- not academic.

First, the problematic references. Lester refers to the seemingly

authorless The Origins of the Koran. This lapse in attribution is

understandable given that this collection of essays is edited by none

other than the infamous, pseudonymous ``Ibn Warraq`` author of Why I am

Not a Muslim. This earlier work cannot be described as anything

resembling valid academic scholarship, as I show with my online

review available at: http://idt.net/

Mubbashir:

``The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways.``

Islam is a religion based on a set of ontological claims: that there is one God who sent prophets to this world; that there`s an after-life; that Muhammad was God`s prophet and the book Qur`an is the exact verbatim word of God sent to Muhammad. It seems to me, that it is entirely appropriate to critique these assertions and scrutinize them using scientific method. You may call it `debunking` but that`s your choice of words :-)

``This kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less

threatening ways``

I have a point or two to make about this..

In the replies to the article, I see a strong undercurrent of doubt, question, and at times complete rejection of traditional Islamic belief. Those who are guilty of the latter might dispute that their comments amount to rejection. That`s okay ;). Pretty much everyone has rejected the orthodox classical version of Islam because they see it as impractical in this age. Yet there is this suspicion and distrust of anything that bears the label `West`. It`s fashionable to give an East or West label to everything. That way it`s convenient to draw the battle lines based on race and geography. Existence of any objective truth can then be a priori dismissed. Then the Pervez Manzoors and Sam Huntingtons of this world can prepare for the East - West Armageddon.

Any secularization of Muslim society has to include the realization that rationalism is not a Western daemon ready to engulf our culture. There were rationalists and freethinkers among Muslims when the West was still in the dark ages. The likes of al-Farabi and al-Razi learned from, and extended the works of ancient Greeks. There were free-thinking secularists in Muslim societies who hadn`t seen the face of Oxford or Harvard. Ghalib is an excellent example pointed out by Saima Shah. Those people, more than us, realized that rationality and reason transcends geographic boundaries. They are also proof against the claim that rationalism is a `Western` value.

Pervez Manzoor never speaks out against rationalism when those rationalist scientists make those computers on which he can write his articles. The ONLY occasion when rationalism comes under attack is when it is offered as a counter-point against religion. That confrontation cannot be avoided because Islam (as well as Christianity and Judaism)is not only normative, but dogmatic religion as well. There`s a dogma that encroaches on the turf of science. So it is entirely appropriate for science to reclaim its turf. In fact, any rennaisance in the Muslim world will have to include a scientific challenge to the basic dogma of Islam. Yes, that challenge has to come from within. That`d happen if the non-muslim kaafirs and the Saima Shahs speak out before Toby Lesters. Why did it take Mr.Lester to write that article. Why didn`t Mr.Mubbashir discover this little Yemeni thing before?

Wasiq:

``The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls.``

It is true that the alleged evidence is isolated and a coherent picture cannot be developed. But it is possible that an outline is taking shape, just like in the evolution case. And the evidence -even if it doesn`t completely support a single alternative explanation- might well cast doubt on the current belief system. For example, Newtonian mechanics didn`t explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Should we have then have canned Newton and stuck to good old Ptolemy? Likewise, in this case of Yemeni evidence, it is very likely that a coherent alternative history will not emerge. It could still pose a great challenge for the prevailing beliefs about the history of the Qur`an.

Ferozk and Saima Shah:

About the question of Rennaisance in Islam..

I think there have been many times where the prevalent belief system has been questioned in Islamic societies. For example in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries Muslim rationalists were taking hold in different parts of the Islamic world. But a `Rennaisance` didn`t take place; for the same reason that it didn`t take place in ancient Greece and Rome IMO. My theory about this is that the common man will take basic science/philosophy seriously, as a challenge to religion, only if he reaps substantial tangible benefits from its corollary i.e. applied science. Esoteric treatises on metaphysics cannot spur a rennaisance. And when science had to offer the practical benefit, a Rennaisance occured. This is only a theory of course, and your attempts to debunk it are welcome :-)

Temporal:

I think the examples you gave of ijtihaad are trivial. That kind of ijtihaad is not going to make any meaningful difference in the way Muslims societies are. When it comes to substantive issues like women`s rights, criminal punishments, rules concerning witnesses and the rights of minorities, ijtihaad comes dangerously close to `filtering` the Qur`an. These are the issues that have held us in the back-waters and you cannot so easily `ijtihaad` them away.

``It is too bad a book that tells time and again to read, understand and practice largely remian unread. I blame myself and yourself for this predicament.``

Please speak for yourself. I have done my share of reading, thinking, and reading again. I have read through books of Hadith and volumes of tafaaseer. And I came to a conclusion that was, at that time difficult and painful: that this book does not seem to have any miracle in it, nor does it seem to be the work of God. And it is my belief that many more would agree with me only if they read this book in it`s entirity; not just some selected excerpts couched in apologist spin or polemic.

Rgds

Mohammad Noorul Islam

I wonder how many Chowk readers knew about the Yemeni Quran (found 1972, seriously studied starting 1979) before reading about it here (I certainly had not heard about it). How come it takes a German scholar and a US magazine to bring it to our attention? Why was there such a lack of interest in learning more about this among the thousands of Islamic scholars, not to mention the millions of mullahs? I believe the answer to these questions may prove a bit troubling.

I am skeptical about much of this project that is being conducted by learned sources; i.e. `specialists`, orientalists, etc. However, the gist of these earth shaking conclusions has been reached by thousands of other muslims. Especially those of us who question the contradictions of Qu`ran as well as the life of Mohammed. A life which included a marriage to a wealthy independent women at a time when women were not suppose to have any rights yet, marrying 99 women (``social-welfare reasons``) some as young 9 or 11. Moreover the absolute confusion, contestation and fissures (shi`a, sunni, Kharijite) after his death are markers of the very limitations (if you want to call it that) of the very secular roots of Islam.

The special interest given to a scientific debunking of Islam is not good for the creation of more open constructive space for dialogue. this kind of conversation has to be internal and to take place in less threatening ways. Iranian revolution is a perfect example of how `top-down` secularizing projects have the opposite effect. So those who are interested for the creation of stronger civil societies, righs based governments have to incorporate these tenets withing pre-existing belief systems (whether that be a call to re-interpretation or creative inscription). Their needs to be a foundational basis for basic rights before we can engage in such conversations.

non-muslim muslim

I am just amazed that how credulous the crowd at Chowk is. Very few people are asking incisive questions:

Should we believe everything that is written in the article?

Has the author done justice to subject matter?

I think that the author has complete failed to tell what is so different between the Yemeni script and the ``common`` Quran.

For example, are there any additional verses, contradictory verses, or additional suras? What is so different about the Yemeni script?

I see him present all kind of ``information`` to basically discredit the traditional view of early history of Islam: he even questions the migration of the Prophet (PBUH) and the beginning of the use of the Higra era. I do not see him presenting any solid evidence as to why one should not believe in the traditional view of Islam.

I am just amazed at disdain that people are showing for the Islamic intellectual tradition. People are saying strange things like that Quran was compiled hundreds of year after Prophet (PBUH) passed away. That is not true. Hazrat Abu Bakr had the Quran compiled. Prophet`s wife and Abu Bakr`s daughter Hazrat Hafsah got the possession of this copy after her father died. The so-called Uthmanian Quran was actually copied from Hazrat Hafsah`s copy.

Some people have made it a struggle in the name of feminism to prove that Quran is not the word of God. By the way, Taslima Nasrin has said that she is against all religions (but she did appeared at a Jewish Community Center in Washington where her poems where read, against the common enemy); she is an atheist not a scholar of Islam whose advice real Muslims should care about. I got this information from a Washington Post article on her not from a Bangladeshi newspaper as Mr. Lester would probably have done.

People are using Ijtihad in a very wrong sense. Ijtihad is trying to find a solution to a problem within the framework of Quran and Sunna. You cannot used ijtihad to start making modifications to Quran. People educate yourself in your religion before you make any claims. That is, if you have not already forsaken it.

Please, also understand that being a Muslim is not being born to Muslim parents (like Judaism and Hinduism) but it requires belief in certain things. People who want to include what they like in the Quran are out of the folds of Islam.

By the way, Patricia Crone is probably at Princeton Theological Seminary not at Princeton`s Institute of Advanced Study as the Author claims, which is revered for the study of natural sciences and people like Einstein resided there.

Re: Ferozk

Thanks for such an articulate and comprehensive reply. I quote, ``For there to be renassiance in Islam,the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued.``

I guess it is the word `dispassionately`, which is the problem. Islam evokes immense passion, be it the lilt of the quran or the call to prayer.

It is also difficult for people who have had no tradition of an alternative philosophy or world view to understand the quran at a philosophical level and argue in `rational` terms. I agree whole-heartedly that the west and the east speak different languages and for constructive debate to take place a more rigorous standard of debate/argument has to be applied than the current one.

I feel that the root of the problem that the Muslim world faces is what you highlighted i.e., the absolutism of the quran after the Khalifa Usman, which precluded any healthy debate on the issue. I also wonder if these Korans are actually the ones which were destroyed in order to preserve the one true copy. It would be fascinating to find out what the exact points of divergence are in the old copies.

I think it would strengthen the Islamic world to know the alternative points of view.

Saima

Re: Saima Shah

In answer to your question, ``how come renaissance did and does not happen?`` in the Islamic world. Also, I apoligise for the tedious lenght of this post.

A basic ingredient for it to happen is the ability to question the offical legitimacy of the day. The reason most ``modern`` Islamic Muslim countries regress to an orthodoxy is, because western secularism does not readily afford answers to certain basic questions and because the Muslim clery, in these countries have been more articulate in fostering their ideas upon the population. The intelligensia are to be blamed for this regression, because instead of highlighting the points of seclurism, they arrogantly dismiss these teachings and are content with their own sense of enlightenment. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, the gap vacated by these ``Islamic modernists`` is filled by the clergy, because they utilize the publics` dissatisfaction for their own ends and more importantly, because they do not allow a tradition of dissent within their own ranks.

Furthermore, the modern Islamic Muslim intelligensia tends to treat their breathen as a group of provincial cousins, to be tolerated and is not interested in educating them to the benefits it is enjoying. The creation of a socio-economic class from this perspective breeds a sense of alienation and resentment at the growing disparities between the classes. This creates a fertile breeding ground for the denoucement of the western tradition and the idea of secularism is discredited, because its proponents do nothing to defend it.

The key to these countries reversion to Islamic orthodxy lies in the failure of the intelligensia to present a crediable argument against the orthodoxy. This battle is being waged and lost on the battlefield of ideas, because the western educated intelligensia itself is divided on this issue and hence, can not formulate a coherent defense of its positions. Also, most of their understanding of religion is shaped by the western tradtions of a seperation of church and state, and consequently, they tend to see Islam with a priori assumptions and some how seek to fit it within their own world view. This then raises the question, how can they argue Islam and the Quran, upon which the ideas of Islamic traditions are based, when they do not even understand what Islam and the Quran means?

This brings us back to your original question. For there to be renassiance in Islam, the basic principles of Islam have to be critically debated and dispassionately argued. For example, the present day version of Quran did not originate till the time of the caliphate of Uthman. His rule started nearly a decade after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). He is said to be responsible for codifying Quran into a written copy, but there is enough documentation to suggest, that some of the suras were written down during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), the early drive to compile a written record came from Abu Bakr.

Also, as you rightly noted, Arabic as a script was in a process of evolving and consquently, this raises the possibility whether the Uthmanic Quran was based on written records or was it based on the oral tradition of recitations. I do not doubt the versacity of oral tradition, but I also know that human memory is not perfect. Another point is that Uthman ordered a copy of the Quran to be made to bridge the gap between the differences in its recitations. We also know from the early Islamic jurisprudence that their idea of a Sunna was one of a living evolving one much like the consitutional interpretation in the present age.

This is the key question: what was the level and scope of the dissent within Islam itself between the time of the Prophet`s death and the emergence of the Quran during Uthman`s reign. If the Quran was meant to standardize recitation, that implies there was a variance of thought on what it meant and hence a possibility of a discussion. Since Uthman`s compliation of Quran, all discussion ceased and it has since then become posio officio not to question the intent of Quran. To usher in an Islamic renaissance, we need to revitalize that debate and we need to question the process that lead to the Quran being created as it is today.

Hope this helps...

I mailed the following reply to the author of this article:

It appears to me that the discovery of the Yemeni scripts can be potentially very important in elucidating this critical part of Islamic history. The most enduring legacy of this discovery will most probably be the debate and thought it will generate.

Like everything else in a scientific endeavour, however, the evidence and its interpretation will invariably change over time.

Although I found the article itself to be very interesting and thought-provoking, I clearly came off with a sense that the presentation of the evidence and its interpretation was improper by scientific standards.

The article suffers from two fatal flaws:

First, it elevates hypotheses to the rank of facts. Preserved copies of the Quran, and their differences from the present day versions, can have a multitude of explanations. However, in the article, the evidence itself is never discussed in any meaningful detail. Neither is any other hypothesis presented. For example, there are no comments from any Islamic scholar who does not agree with these interpretations. From a scientific point of view this is entirely unacceptable.

Second, very importantly, we have to consider the whole issue in light of the nature of the evidence at hand. The evidence is isolated and fragmented. A close analogy to this case would be the case of evolutionary debates. Even within the scientific and non-creationist circles, the interpretation of evidence has been problematic, with no one clear point of view, simply because the evidence is not chronologically uninterrupted. The interpretation of isolated evidence is very tricky and susceptible to many potential pitfalls. The author of the article, it appears, does not appreciate the importance of this issue. In addition, if the original researchers are making strong claims based upon their evidence then they too are falling into this trap. Again in analogy with the evolutionary debate, a clearer picture of what is going on will appear only after a long period of scrutiny and verification of the evidence at hand, and by corroborating it with other clues within the Islamic tradition.

That increasingly diverse interpretations of the history of the Quran will appear is inevitable. Like any other scientific endeavour, however, one also must have the prudence and intelligence not to dwell on any one hypothesis but to seek an honest and scientific approach to the issue where all hypotheses are taken into account appropriately, and the evidence available is treated with due caution.

The article unfortunately leaves one with the impression that the author and the researchers have already made up their minds on what the outcome should be, independently of the evidence at hand.

I must also comment on your inappropriate choice of timing for this article. Clearly this publication is not a scholarly venue for scientific and arcane discussions, however, one would have expected a better sense of timing from a popular publication like yours. Sensationalism has the potential benefits of improving the number of hits to your site, however in the long run it leaves a sense of distaste about the motivations of the publication. I hope that we have evolved past the days of Orientalist discourse where Islam was viewed through the myopic and biased lens of Western academia.

I found the articles pretty fascinating and and intuitively exciting because it always seemed strange that the Quran was not a text so many centuries after its revelation.

Knowledge is not a stagnant pool. If it were languages would not evolve. Objective truth and mythological truth have to interrelate at some point, over the centuries of human evolution. Words like revelation have gently changed to inspiration, experimentation, deduction, hypotheisis and probable conclusion. I do not understand why rationalism is a threat to God or the concept of one. Surely IT is all the Almighty? If so than what is the harm in ijtehad? or criticism?

I find S. Pervez Manzoor too emotionally challenged and too verbose to be convincing on the rightist side. Covering up obvious gaps with verbose diatribes does not further the cause of Islam. It would be far better to criticize in a mellower tone. I wonder if he can explain why a rationalist society still has the generousity to study faith but the faithful have such little paitience for the questioner. I thought it would be otherwise because of the `deep spiritualism` that organized religion has to offer. Of-course I do not have the special insight that a muslim male would probablt have on the matter.

A renaissance or reform from within Islam is a great hope. I have always felt that there is too much man in the Quran anyway. I wish the author had used a better word than feminism.

Unfortunately, most women who raise their heads are hounded by the orthodox. From Asma Jehangir to Taslima Nasrin.

And what about the Sufis? The Sufis were pretty anti-orthodox way back when. There is an article about Sufi kafirana-pan at Chowk.

What about poets who always put down the maulvi and the vayiz e.g., our genius Ghalib? How come renaissance did not and does not happen? there has been enough within Islam to carry a revolution in the Sub-continent and Turkey, then why does it not happen that a rationalist and tolerant civization is born out of these threads? Why do so many Islamic countries again and again go back to orthodoxy after becoming more modern or more tolerant, eg., Iran, Turkey, the sub-continent, Afghanistan.

Interesting article. Following the nature of scientific endeavours, we can be sure that there will be much more to see in terms of both the evidence and conclusions as time goes by. It seems to me that the more enduring legacy of these Yemeni scripts will be the debate they give rise to.

I do wish to point out three interesting points for people to mull over, I am sure that many people are already aware of them.

1) There is almost a complete consensus amongst Biblical scholars that the concept of Trinity was a later invention. Jesus never talks about it directly in the New Testament. Yet, there are a billion or so people who swear by the Trinity. This shows the weight one can attach to ``popularity`` as a means of identifying the ``objective truth`` of a concept.

2) There is also a great deal of evidence that supports the conclusion that the concept of virgin birth of Mary is again a later invention. This is interesting given that Islam (and the Quran) openly espouse the concept of virgin birth.

3) In all religious issues, there is always more than what is obvious. The aims of religions and science diverge on some issues. Whereas science strives for an ``objective truth`` that can be backed by hard evidence, religion recognizes other ``truths`` that cannot be readily substantiated. Much of the mythology of a religion serves a different reason than gaining an objective understanding of the universe. It tries to provide a foundation for a unifying ideology, that can be referenced in the everyday lives of the believers. Sort of saying that: ``I believe in so-and-so because it makes me a better person or more able to handle the everyday life``. In terms of their effects on the world and the lives of people, these ``imaginary truths`` are more influential and long-lasting than the ``objective truths``.

Upfront let me apologize for the length of this posting. In what follows, quotes from the article are indicated by `` ``

A criticism of the Atantic Monthly article can occur on at least three different levels:

1. For its reliance on a small group of self-referential scholars

2. For the implausability of the claims of these scholars

3. For some of obvious incoherence of what the article says

The first critique is simple: The article revolves around the work of a band of scholars: Puin, Crone, Rappin, Wansborough. if you follow the links to the pubhlished work of these scholars, they are in turn citing each other as ``authorities``. The whole situation is curiously reminscient of what Crone herself decries about the traditional analysis of the Quran: ``This is no mean feat, of course; the Koran has come down to us tightly swathed in a historical tradition that is extremely resistant to criticism and analysis``

The article makes little mention of what other scholars have said about the critical analysis of the above, aside from quoting Manzoor Qadir (whose work is available on the Web and hence readily accessable unlike that of traditional Muslim scholars). This seems to speak of either

a) an intellectual laziness on the part of Mr. Lester (this is, after all, a review article: Its title is `What is the Koran?`. It`s not `Here`s what Crone et. al. think of the Koran`)

or b) an intellectual dishonesty. But we will let that pass.

The second critique: Let us agree with what the main thrust of the article. Let us assume that the Koran was in fact compiled over a couple of centuries and that the doctrine of infallability was really only adopted in the tenth century. This then leads to the following absurd situation: The compilers of the Hadith (the major compilations of which were complete around h250 or 900 AD) were meticulosly careful in documenting the exegesis of the Hadith. Detailed multi-dimensional categorizations of the Hadith were made. See the USC MSA Web site for an article on this.

This then begs the obvious question: if the muslim scholars were so careful in documenting and attempting to discern between alternative versions of the Hadith (which while central to Islam pale in comparision to the Quran), then was no such effort done in this alleged long-term compilation of the Quran? Did these very scholars just proceed to add and subtract the Quran in a cavalier manner? Did they not try to deduce the reliability of the these hypthetical ``additions`` to the Quran? Is this probable that they they would treat the main source document, the very fount of the religion, in such an arbitrary manner?

If that does not seem likely, then perhaps there is another possibility: that such work on the exegesis of the Quran was done by the scholars but whoever, whenver decided upon the Quran as having reached its final version (say in the tenth century), they then went out and so systematically destroyed all traces of any such scholarly work that not even one fragment or mention of it can be found today!

The reader is left to judge the plausbility of this argument...

The third critique of the article can be made on the basis of the incoherence of what is says.

Consider first, what the learned scholar Mr. Puin has to say: ````The Koran claims for itself that it is `mubeen,` or `clear,``` he says. ``But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn`t make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can`t even be understood in Arabic -- then it`s not translatable. People fear that.``

This statement literally does not make sense. For example, I can take the position that the Theory of Relativity simply does not make sense. I would then say: `Many physicists -- and indeed my friends -- will tell you otherwise, but the fact is that half the Theory of Relativity is just incomprehensible` And no matter how louldly the physics faculties of half the world may protest, I can blithely maintain that no, you physicists are wrong, the theory is incomprehensible. So similary, Mr. Puin can confidently assert, that no, you Islamic scholars are wrong, the Quran is incomprhensible. And it is incomprehensible because I say so, because I cannot comprehend it. Ok. That statement is literally worth about as much as the fact that I don`t comprehend the Theory of Relativity. So what?

Now consider yet another criticism voiced in the article: ``It sometimes makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse, and it assumes a familiarity with language, stories, and events that seem to have been lost even to the earliest of Muslim exegetes (typical of a text that initially evolved in an oral tradition).``

let us not dispute the assertion that this familiarity with events etc. is lost even to Muslim scholars. Regardless, this loss of familiarity would also be typical of a text which was revealed at a specific time and a place: in a certain milieu, addressing a certain group of people as a living reality. Indeed, if the Quran had been added to and modified over the course of a couple of centuries one would expect that later `copy editors` would reject material which they and everyone else could not comprehend.

Now consider: ``As a result, the Koran has traditionally not been translated by Muslims for non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. Instead it is read and recited in the original by Muslims worldwide, the majority of whom do not speak Arabic. The translations that do exist are considered to be nothing more than scriptural aids and paraphrases.``

Again, this betrays an absolute lack of understanding of Islam and its culture. If Quran is the infallible word of Allah, then by definition, its canonical and indeed only version can exist in its original language. Translations do exist, they always have. However, both translater and reader understand that this not the Quran.

And finally: ``He concluded that the Koran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq.``

Hmmm. Interesting subtext. Of course the Koran could not have been devised by that ``provincial band of pagan desert tribesmen``. Surely it took some of the great Judeao-Christian civilization (who of course in a grand Socratic tradition were ``arguing volubly`` on theological matters) to write all of this up.

Mr. Lester`s article fails on almost every count but for challenging muslims to address this issue and dispell some of his manifest ignorance.

re: temporal

I am in complete agreement with you regarding ijtihad. Using the same logic and applying it to Shariah; in the old days 4 witnesses were required to prove rape. Advances in DNA technology can now provide much more accurate and reliable conclusions regarding rape then the testimony of any four witnesses. As such, if DNA evidence exists, then four witnesses should no longer be required as a matter of law. But try and tell that to the mullahs.

Re: Temperol post # 13

My explication of the term ``emotion`` was not meant to deny you, or anyone for that matter, your values or believes but was intended to convey a sense of objectivity. It has been my experience that emotions, rightly or wrongly, tend to prejudice opinions and they do make people less receptive to opposing ideas or viewpoints.

I am still forming my opinion about the article, but I have, in the mean time, come to the following conclusions. The article`s rationale, and for that matter its rasion d`etre, not with standing, this whole discussion touches upon the validity of a person`s belief system(s). That is a highly subjective field and it is not neccessarily open to dissent, specially if that dissent is aimed at questioning a person`s core believes. Depending on our personal interpretations, we may agree or we may disagree with the intent of the article and that in itself neither proves or disproves anything.

The exposition of the ideas, which Toby Lester suggests, are grounded in the ``traditionalist`` school of western histrography which seeks to chronologically document past events within a narrative linear progressive timeline. The biggest flaw of the article, in my opinion, is that it relies on the interpretative skills of Puin. As the article clearly estabishes the fact, Puin is an expert in the restoration of historic Islamic documents and in the field of Islamic calligraphy. No where in the article does it mention Puin`s credentials as an Islamic
scholar capable of posulating an opinion upon the history of Quranic thought and interpretative development.

Intellectually, the article does posit some interesting questions about the early theological evoloution of the Quranic doctrine, but its ``adventurism`` in speculating a fundlemental re-think in the Islamic scholarly tradition, based on the Yemeni discoveries, is highly improbable. The discovery of the Yemeni Quranic verses, said to be the earliest form of Quran, will not alter the basic perceptions of Sunna or Hadith as we understand them, but may offer an understanding towards their eventual evolvement into their present religious doctrinal codifications.

This is where, in my opinion, the efficacy of the article lies in. The article does raise an interesting point about the growth of Islamic doctrine, based on Sunna and Hadith, and how that has morphed, over the centuries, into its present incarnation. It is hoped that these discoveries, when taken in the context of other scholarly Islamic works, will shed some new light upon the evolution of the Islamic religious heirarchy and how its has influenced the interpretations of Sunna and Hadith since the time of the Prophet.

The only point of the article with which I agree is that Islam needs to undertake a critical self study to determine the history and chronology of its own Quranic interpretative traditions. The point I am interested in is whether Quran should be strictly interpretated as a devine revelation, or it should be seen as a contempory historic document, and whether it should be considered as the ``word`` of God or the ``intent`` of God as given to the Prophet. All in all, Islamic orthodoxy needs to engage in a debate and in doing so, it should seek to find a way out of the dogmatic rigdity that is constricting its traditions of intellectual expressiveness.

As said before, this is an extermely prima facie analysis of the article. I still have to read all the supporting documents which Toby Lester used to augment his arguments in the article.

Temporal, again I am sorry for the lenght of this post!

Sincerely, Feroz

Noor:

You misinterpreted my `re-interpretation`.

Let me illustrate. The founding fathers in these Excited States drafted an eight thousand word document in 1776. They could not even have dreamt of life as it exists today. The Supreme Court judges were entrusted to interpret ( or re-interpret) that written document according to the changed times and needs. In an oversimplification (much as I hate it) Supreme Court Judges give their verdict on changed circumstances and needs based on the wishes of the founding fathers and the spirit of the document.

Now, let us go back to Koran. The religious scholars would drink coca cola. It didn`t exist in the Arabian desert then. They use a simple formula---- the ingredients are permissible therefore the whole is okay too. This is basic ijtihad. My problem with them is their selective use of logic. Today charts exists, all neatly printed and scientifically calculated, that will give you the time for any prayer on any day of the year. One can find these charts even in village mosques. Nobody calculates prayer times the old fashioned way. Yet when one demands to extend the same logic for the new moon all hell breaks loose.

There are tons of examples where the original spirit of the document can be `re-interpreted` according to the needs of the times. We have to understand this. The mechanism exists. We have to overcome mental barriers.

It is too bad a book that tells time and again to read, understand and practice largely remian unread. I blame myself and yourself for this predicament. The educated have abandoned their turf to the vested clergy.

Sorry Feroze, how can one be not emotional?

regards